Live posts from the 2009 International
Conference on Climate Change hosted by The Heartland Institute
One of this morning’s speakers was Myron
Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Some highlights:
* He noted that at the
recent “global warming” rally that was snowed over in DC, a Greenpeace truck had a solar
panel that was covered in snow so the group had to turn to a generator — we wonder if the
lesson will reach the proper decision makers
* Ebell sought to enlist the
audience “in a war over whether to introduce energy rationing”
* The debate over rationing
goes back to the 1970’s — it is, he says, the key while “global warming is just
the pretext”
* He noted the irony of the
Obama administration appointing a science advisor who has advocated for massive
de-industrialization
* He encouraged the audience
that the fight was by no means lost, especially because advocates of energy rationing are not
well-liked by many Americans (”Thank God tat Al gore is the leader of their side” he
said)
* Cap-and-trade advocates
didn’t really pick up many votes in the recent election, and many middle-America Senators who
may support progressive agendas elsewhere cannot wreck their state’s economy by supporting
such a plan
* His main advice: ask your
congressman, “why do you want to raise my energy prices?: (sounds like good advice to us)
In his discussion on today’s Climatology
panel, J. Scott Armstrong talked about the curious polar bear campaign by the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF). We’ve all seen the Noah Wyle TV ads ad nauseum which implore:
“Polar bears are on their way to
extinction. If we don’t act now, most will die in our children’s lifetime. But
you can help change that. Call now and join the Wildlife Rescue team…If we don’t
act now, it could be too late for the polar bear.”
There’s just one problem, there’s
no real basis for these claim as Armstrong notes…
Some highlights from Chris Horner’s brief
but impactful speech this morning focusing on the Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions:
* Horner argues this debate
has never been about emissions; it’s about bringing our lifestyle “into
check”
* Kyoto will never get 2/3
of Senate votes so proponents are looking for ways around the treaty rules in our Constitution
— essentially suspending democracy
* One thought is to simply
call the “treaty” an “executive agreement” that does not need the full level
of Senate support owed to real international agreements
* The problem, Horner says,
is that there is only one way to block this: oppose fast-track authority to negotiate a treaty that
will harm America’s economy
This morning’s provocative session at the
Heartland Institute’s conference on climate change included a rousing speech from Marc Morano,
an aide to Sen. Jim Inhofe. Morano’s discussion focused on the consensus-busting questions
from the scientific community and the potential policy disasters flowing from global warming
alarmists. Click here to find some key quotes and arguments…
Sometimes you come across a quote that makes
you do a Scooby Doo double take. This morning’s spit take comes courtesy of a leading carbon
capper, courtesy of the New York Times:
Representative Edward J.
Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, is leading a special committee writing the House version of
climate change legislation. He voted for the 1993 energy tax bill, which is known — not fondly
— as the B.T.U. tax, for British thermal unit, a measure of energy output. Mr. Markey has
since become a faithful follower of the cap-and-trade school.
“I am aware of the
economic arguments for a carbon tax,” Mr. Markey said, “but politics is the art of the
possible, and I think cap-and-trade is possible.”
He added: “Somebody
once told me that a smart man learns from his mistakes but a wise man learns from others’
mistakes.
Umm. M’kay.
Has anyone out there been following
Europe’s troubles with cap-and-trade? And we want to follow their mistakes because we think
it’s possible to make the same mistake here?
Like, zoinks!